Why Do You Dislike Hillary Clinton?

While I think it’s fair to say that (IMO) there have been any number of unnecessary posts in which President Bush had been called various names (since name-calling really adds nothing of value to the discussion), I think it’s also fair to say that there have been at least an equal number in which members spell out the specific reasons for their dislike of the President.

It seems as though, however, that there is a serious lack of specific reasons why people dislike Sen. Clinton.

As TIS has stated:

And there have been any number of responses which seem to support the above theory and proceeded to degrad Ms. Clinton, such as:

Just a sample above…..

Anyway. I did find one in which Double-J mentions something specific about her views on taxation, and another by someone else mentioning something else (I forget who and what, I forgot to copy it, and I don’t feel like going back to look for it – it was abortion, maybe), so I’m wondering:

What is it exactly – what is there specifically about her policies, ideas, view points, etc. that make you – whoever cares to respond here – dislike her so much, politically speaking?

I don't like her because I think she'd do absolutly anything to win an election. I don't think she has any personal beliefs, she just adopts those of whomever she's speaking to. She is the true definition of a carpet bagger - she's just chasing power for the sake of having power; she's got nothing to offer of herself except for the fact that she'll bend to fit what she supposes people want to see.

Other than that, I think she's shill, spineless, disrespectful, and plays toward increasing the schism between parties, social classes, races, and religions. She thrives on division.

And I can't imagine listening to her awful, awful voice every time she's one television.

Well, which politician wouldn't?

And under the rocks they crawled.

Well some reasons why I don't like her.

Her views on taxation(like Double J has mentioned)
Her complete and utter disrequard for our nations military
Her views on guns
I've compared her to Hitler, cause the vibe I get from her is she would turn(or at the very least) try to turn this free nation into the new nazi germany. The way I see it she's hungry for power and will do anything to get it.

Plus when she ran for the Senate for the state of New York, I get the view she didn't do it cause she cares for the people from New York. She did it cause her husbands 2 terms was coming to an end, and she couldn't stand to see her name/image fade into obscurity.


That's just my 2 cents worth.

Well I can't say I "don't like her." I think she's smart and very possibly capable of being President. She does give the outer impression of being tough and I guess I can see where some may use "bitch" to describe her. However, if a man had the "bitch" qualities wouldn't that be an asset? I don'tknow statistics, but am wondering if men more than woman dislike her and because she does come across as "strong", find it threatening?? Then again, I'm finding some women don't like her either. Either way I still think many will be surprised when someone else gets the next nomination.

I know as First Lady she presented a health care plan that didn't make it, but to be honest at that time, I really wasn't as concerned about what this plan consisted of. In the last few years, I've gotten older and would pay attention now to any health care proposals. So I can't really comment on what I did or didn't like about her plan.

If I may add another reason why "I" think she's not liked (especially by the right), simply because she was married to Clinton, bottom line.

All that being said, I am hoping she will not get the Democratic nomination for a couple reasons and I think pretty valid reasons.

1. I really think she's too new and I don't feel I know enough about her stand on issues. I think maybe she needs more experience. (Also, like I've mentioned a couple times, I don't think now (08)is the election to have a woman President, although hopefully the time is getting close)

2. Most importantly, I don't like the fact that she (and many of the Democrats btw) are NOT speaking out more against this Administration (i.e our reasons for war; the disgraceful scandals and overall incompetance). They come off like wimps. I would like someone more vocal about and straightforward on issues. Of course straightforward and politician is kind of a joke isn't it?

I'm willing to hear her out should she run, but I still think she's too green at politics.

TIS

Again, which politicians aren't?

I don't dislike Hillary Clinton at all, I just think that she would be the wrong choice for the first Female President of The United States. She's similar to former Prime Minister Kim Campbell that way. When Prime Minister Brian Mulroney declared he would not run in the 1993 election and retired Ms. Campbell won the Conservative Party Leadership race and as they were the ruling party, so she won the Prime Ministership. She was PM for about oh...maybe six to eight months or so (give or take) and then called an election and was trounced by former PM Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party...The Conservatives (who should have chosen Quebec Premier Jean Charest as Leader in my opinion) were reduced to two seats in the House Of Commons! Ms. Campbell didn't even win her own riding and lost her seat in Parliament!

The future for Canadian women in politics does look bright however, with such talent as Conservatives Rona Ambrose, Diane Finley, Nina Grewal, Helena Guergis and Josee Verner and Liberals Brenda Chamberlain, Ruby Dhalla, Susan Kadis, Tina Keeper, Yasmin Ratansi and Judy Sgro I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that one of these women will be Canada's first elected Female Prime Minister (I know I would vote for Ambrose, Guergis, Verner, Dhalla or Ratansi ).

I don't know too much about women in the House Of Representatives and the Senate so I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to give my views on Females in American politics. I do know one thing though, Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice cannot be the best that the Democratic and Republican Parties can do. At least I hope they aren't.

Hey Don J.

A little off topic, and if you've never watched Bill Maher, you'll not know who I mean. However, he's had a former lady Prime Minister of Canada on a couple times. I liked her. She seemed intelligent, well informed and actually very fair in the discussions. I just don't remember her name. Do you possibly know who I mean and when was she PM of Canada? I wouldn't mind a leader like her from what I saw.

TIS

Hillary just seems to come off as a fake to me.

DS

T.I.S., I know exactly what you're talking about and I used to watch Politically Incorrect all the time and once I get my black box er...completely legal HBO/TMN satellite dish hooked up I plan to watch his current show as well. Kim Campbell is the woman you are reffering to I believe and yes she is very well spoken, bright, intelligent, well informed and fair, but then again, all Canadian women are.

I don't know, maybe you are reflecting an American liberal Democrat's perspective and of course this is absolutely ok. However, in Canada although we are very similar in many ways to Americans there are many differences in the whole political culture. From what I know women play a much more prominent role in the politics of our nation (however admittedly it is not nearly enough) than American women do in The States. As we have much choice (take my above post as an example) we are a bit spoiled in our expectations of a Prime Minister Male/Female/Martian or whatever.

Having said all this, I think that Ms. Campbell may have been a pretty decent PM had she been given the chance but I just don't think she would have been a Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi (given a legitimate mandate from the Canadian people). However, Ms. Campbell would have been a better PM than Ms. Clinton or Ms. Rice would be a President. Hell, Campbell would be a better President than Clinton and Rice!

Thanks for the info Don J. She did impress me the two or three times I saw her.

As far as the US and a woman President, does Canada, and England and other countries who have had woman leaders think we are a step or two behind in that respect???

TIS

I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, politicians, by their very nature, are striving for power and are willing to do a lot to get it. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would do absolutely anything to get it.

Say what you will about Bush, but there are certain things, right or wrong, that he stands by. I can see Hillary jetisoning anything and everything should the situation call for it. A trait I find very disquieting.

TIS - I can see what you're saying about men not liking her because they're threatened by a strong woman, and in most other cases I would say you have a point, but I think the men who don't like her feel that way for the same reasons as the women who don't like her.

The Whitewater scandal.

Hillary Clinton and her husband started up a compnay called the Whitewater Development Corporation. Several associates of theirs invested into this company, with two of those investors being friends of hers named James McDougal and Susan McDougal. The real estate market took a big hit which caused Whitewater Development to take a fiancial nosedive. Several years later James McDougal invested into a project called Castle Grand. He borrowed funds from his own Savings and Loan company, which under the law only allowed him to borrow a maximum of $600,000. More money was needed for this investment so McDougal had an employee of the bank, Seth Ward, funnel an additional $1.15 Million into this investment. This was illegal and McDougal knew it. So he moved money back and forth between various investor accounts. However the feds caught onto this scheme and Seth Ward fell under investigation along with the attorney who drafted the illegal financial agreement. That attorney's name was Hillary Clinton. The eventual collapse of McDougal's S&L, which Hillary occasionally represented as a lawyer, took $60 million of taxpayer money to bail out.

In 1993, the speculation over the Whitewater deals began to loom large, and White House Counsel Vince Foster was in charge of compiling and vetting documents for the increasingly inevitable investigation. In July 2003, Foster was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head in a Washington, D.C. park. Bill Clintons personal documents mysteriously dissapeared from Foster's office. It eventually was found that the people who removed those documents happened to be aids of Hillary Clinton. Those documents eventully surfaced in the White House, and when Hillary was questioned, under oath, she claimed that she had absolutely no idea on how those documents got there.
Clinton friends James McDougal and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbel and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker -- were convicted of federal charges unrelated to Whitewater. Four of these were pardoned by Clinton in the final hours of his presidency, one of them being Susan McDougal, the same lady involved in the Whitewater Development Corporation and the Castle Grand project.

Hillary's supposed investment in Commodities. When she was question about her involvment in the Madison S&L, and asked if she made her money off of a real estate deal, this woman claimed that she put $1000 in a trading account, and that she had made her $1 million trading commodities. Nothing wrong with that except had you or I wanted to open up a commodities trading account, we would be required to put up at LEAST $25,000 to $50,000 in liquid funds, along with another $25,000 to $50,000 gaurentee from a trading firm.
And the odds of her making that kind of money off of a $1000 investment are almost impossible.

Seems to me that she was tied into a lot of shady people and always seemed to be in the mix of a lot of shady deals.

I've called her a smug bitch because she looks as though she now walks around thumbing her nose up at everyone, almost saying " Ha, I'm like teflon, nothing that I ever was involved with or charged with stuck. Look at me now."

Not to mention my dislike for her because I feel that she has a complete disregard for our Military.

After 9/11 this Senator from New York did not attend ONE memorial service or funeral for any of the fallen heroes!

After leaving the White house, she suddenly became a New Yorker, and then before you knew it decided to run for Senator of New York.

She has never shown me that she is someone who stands by her convictions and beleifs. She seems to try to "play the middle" never taking a firm stand on either side.

Not to mention her disrepect for The President whenever he's addressing the nation. She continually frowns and makes faces.

I don't believe that she has stood by Bills side out of sheer love, but instead for the Political benefits.

She does not seem to be sincere. She seems more the selfish type.


I've met her twice in the last 4 years, and one time even had a conversation with her ( right TIS ), and I was left with the impression that she puts on this facade, a phony act. She did not leave me with the impression that she really cared for the people.

Hillary Clinton is one of those politicians who goes whatever way the wind blows.


Unlike a Rudy Giuliani.


Sorry for the long post. There are a lot more reasons that I could write here, but then this post would take up about 10 pages by itself.

Hey, you asked WHY! So I told ya!


Don Cardi

Well DC you said a mouthful right there. Course everything you said I agree with 100%

She was a 'Goldwater Girl' who went astray (not that there's anything really 'wrong' with that).

She rode (and is still riding) to power on her husband's coattails (not that there's anything really 'wrong' with that).

She is a phony (how people can't see through half of the lines she dishes out is still amazing to me...not that there's anything really 'wrong' with that).

She is a Socialist.

As Bill O'Reilly noted the day after the 2000 election...the fact that Mrs. Clinton emerged for her victory speech BEFORE her opponent made his concession speech (something I have honestly never seen done before)...speaks VOLUMES about the woman.

Oh, and by the way I agree with Don Smitty.
She is a cow (not that there's anything really 'wrong' with that).
Apple

Um....what exactly does the term "cow" signify when applied to a woman?

Seriously. I know what is meant when a woman is called a "pig", or a "dog", or a "beast", or a "horse face", or an "elephant", but I'm not familiar with "cow."

Oops, sorry my mistake.

Meant to say, 'sow'.

By the way...althought my 'cow' comment was meant more as a footnote to the rest of the post... interesting that of all the valid 'political' reasons presented by various members for 'disliking' Hillary or not wanting her to be President...this is the first that's gotten a response or challenge from the originator.

Apple

ps - I also agree with DC's term, 'smug bitch'. Anyone need the significance of that explained???

I tought she was in the Liberal Party.

Again, which politicians aren't? [/b][/quote]A hungry for power politician is one who will stop at nothing, not merely to win, but to crush an opponent -- a Tom DeLay, or a Karl Rove. Who has Hillary ever crushed?

Strictly in terms of political parties, she is a Democrat. Most people refer to her as a liberal, which is what many (but not all) modern-day Democrats have become.

In recent months, she had definitely begun the illusion of moving to center in preparation for the 2008 presidential race and/or re-election to the Senate. Which confirms Cancerkitty's EXCELLENT observation that: "...she'd do absolutly anything to win an election. I don't think she has any personal beliefs, she just adopts those of whomever she's speaking to. She is the true definition of a carpet bagger..."

But if you really look at her personal history, both before, during and since the White House years catapulted her into national fame (including that book of hers, "It Takes A Village")...her core beliefs are clearly that of a 'Socialist'.

But of course, she could never officially register and run as one...for that would be political suicide.

Apple

There's a woman named 'Nita Lowey' (unsure of correct spelling)...a prominent NY Democrat who was both qualified for and aiming toward running for the U.S. Senate in 2000. Ms. Lowey quietly and suddenly stepped aside early that year in order to give Mrs. Clinton a clear road to her party's nomination.

Just one example of whom Hillary has 'crushed'.

Apple

Vince Foster.

So, she's a go-getter,insincere, jet-setter, competitor crusher who doesn't care about anything but power and involved in the right wing media blitz of Whitewater (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think she was convicted of a crime?); is involved with shady characters and is a cow to boot????? Does that about sum it up??? A little harsh don't you think? Not that there's anything wrong with that.


TIS

I actually love when she's all over the media getting bashed by the GOP. It gives her more publicity and it shows everyone that the GOP is more concerned about bashing Hillary than being concerned about growing problems in our country.

It's funny you should say that, as that's one of the main criticisms I hear about the Democratic Party as a whole right now - no ideas of their own, just criticising the Republicans.

You forgot the 'Socialist' part.

And sure, it's all harsh...it's also the truth and it's also politics. After all, plaw DID ask what we DON'T like about the cow. I mean sow.

Wow...that's at least TWO Gangster BB members who like to use my lines when they have nowhere else to go!!

Cool

Apple

Yes, if you had her on the West Coast you would know it first hand. Some people here say that she is a b-itch, but she is our b-itch, but we would be glad to send her your way if you would like. As of today, we haven't had any takers.

More often her name goes hand and hand with that C word that we really shouldn't be using in the present of the ladies.

Then again so many have said that she also loves the ladies as much as us men do.

After seeing her and hearing her speak, I wouldn't take her word for anything. Both Bill and Hillary do have a way with the people though. Bill can charm the panties off a grandmother, and people will stand around for hours waiting to get a look at him.

Hillary would gladly stick it up any and all people if she could get up another notch in the power ladder of life. She plays people like a flute. It doesn't take much, because stupid people fall all over her like a movie star on Hollywood Blvd. :rolleyes:

Any one who says she looks good, must be blind. She must have her make-up on to smooth out that face. And that dyke look doesn't help her. No wonder Bill sniffs around like a hound dog in a chicken ranch.
If you all think George Bush is bad for the country, God help us all if she ever makes it to the whitehouse!

Apple,

Yes he sure did, and you have every right to your opinion.


Carry on!!! (oops! Isn't that another Applism? :p


TIS

THIS JUST IN!!!

HILLARY CLINTON'S RUNNING MATE FOR THE 2008 ELECTION WILL BE:



Drew "Next Question" Rosenhaus!

Political analysts predict this will decrease the word count of Hillary Clinton's press conferences significantly, and should enable Mrs. Clinton to get to work on more important issues, like raising taxes and killing babies!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that comment not meant to imply that I am "pro-Hillary"?

Because if it is, let me correct you: That is not the case.

In fact, I can't stand her.

As I say, I'm just wondering what the term "cow" means when applied to a woman.

A perfectly innocent question, believe it or not. Certainly not a "challenge."

And since you "corrected" yourself and brought it up, I'll ask about "sow" also.

I know that a sow is a female pig. So I guess that's what you're calling Ms. Clinton.

So how exactly is she a "female pig"?

Is she too fat? Does she have a big fat ass? An ugly face? A squiggly and curly little tail? A big piggy-like nose or snout? Does she eat too much?

Does she like to roll around in the dirt and muck with her pig-cohorts and pig-friends while she oinks away to her hearts content?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You are wrong.

And yes, she's fat. Not an in-your-face kind've fat like, say...Aretha Franklin or the late Mama Cass.

She's got what many of us gals have (yours truly included)...an ass & thigh problem.

Have you really never heard a woman referred to as a 'cow'?

Still interesting, though...mine are STILL the only posts you've responded to (and in quite a sarcastic manner the second time, I must say). God bless ya...you never let me down.



But back to important stuff...since many of us have answered your question in detail, what is it YOU dislike about Hillary?

Apple

Yeah, your posts are the only ones I respond to..,yours and JJ's, and Don Cardi's, and Smitty's and fathersson's and Snake's......At least you're in good company

I'm afraid you think too highly of yourself.

Your posts are, however, very often the most fun to respond to. Almost as much fun for me as replying to fathersson.

OK....go ahead and insert your obligatory "you pressed my buttons, I didn't disappoint you, blah, blah, blah....." comment here:__________________.

Seems to me my last "pig post" pressed yours quickly enough.

Yeah, I know, you pressed my buttons, I didn't disappoint you, blah, blah, blah.....

Why don't you give it a rest already? Those comments add nothing to the discussion.

Now, to answer your questions...

Yes, I've heard women referred to as "cows", but I was never quite sure what was meant by the reference. I laways kinda thought that it had something to do with a cow's udders, but I wasn't sure.

If I did know, I wouldn't have asked.

And why do I dislike Hillary?

I prefer that those who hold public office have a bit of a resume first. I thought that she was a carpetbagger with no reason whatsover to represent New York State in the Senate, totally lacking in experience, and who rode into office strictly based on the fact that she was a woman and her name.

And since she's been in office, she's done nothing at all to make me think that she's qualified for the office that she now holds, much less a higher one.

thought I'd weigh-in on the topic.

On Dec. 29, 2004, I wrote:

As my Senator I want to know what she's done for NY. I think it's a sad commentary that our country thinks so highly of her. This woman compromised all of her integrity and pride to get herself elected. Her "stand by her man" was just a farce to get elected.

Before Pres. Bill left office, he pardoned several Jewish criminals charged with scamming millions of dollars from the state on phony education aid. Ironically, the sect they belonged to voted 99.9 % for Hillary.

Same reason you don't apparently...too much fun!!

I'm afraid I don't even recall that 'pig' post you refer to, so if in your opinion it pushed any buttons I guess it didn't push too hard.



Nice try, plaw...you keep plugging at the 'clever comeback' thing. Someday, you might reach Level 2.

But hey, thanks for your answers re Hillary.

Until tomorrow...

Thinking 'too highly' of myself,
Apple

I think it's interesting that, of all the people here who have posted their reasons for disliking Senator Clinton, it is Don Cardi and Don Cardi only who seemed to answer with any logic or rational analysis. Others here simply referred to her as being a bitch, compared her to various farm animals, or talked about her alleged propensity towards lesbianism. Then of course, there was her fat ass, her "dyke look", and her plastered on make-up.

I have met her, I did find her far more attractive in person than in photos (although that classifies me as Mrs. Magoo, I guess), well-versed in the topic at hand, intelligent, charming, disarming and well-spoken. Does that mean I would vote for her? I think it would depend on who was running against her.

As for Nita Lowey, Apple, I don't believe her withdrawing quietly from any political race would qualify as her being "crushed" by Mrs. Clinton. I think that it comes down to who the DNC believes has the best shot at winning, and that's who gets the war chest. I'm sure that Ms. Lowey realized that it would hopeless for her to continue, and she made the decision not to go forward. Similar to DA Pirro's recent switch from the Senate race to running for AG.

It was this one:

Apparently you don't have much a memory, since you replied to it about 20 minutes after I made it. Today. Less than three hours ago.

I call that a "button pushed".

Now let me correct myself:

I never want to you to "give it a rest".

Having my fun with you is too much fun.

But PLEASE...come up with something original already besides how you push my buttons.

I know that you do. That's what responding in these political discussions is all about.

Snake pushes my buttons with his views on religion. Don Smitty does with his blind love for President Bush.

Patrick pushes Don Cardi's buttons all the time, and what's more I believe that he knows he does, knows how he does it, and does it on pupose.

And you push my buttons because you, um, you just ....well, you push them just by being yourself.

Believe me, I don't mind the sarcastic personal sniping. God knows I'm more than guilty of doing that myself.

But at least I try to be original with each snipe. Not the same old thing every time.

Snipe all you want. I enjoy it. But again, PLEASE come up with something original already.

I guess that goes to show you that people have many DIFFERENT reasons for disliking Hillary. All personal

Is one reason better then another. No, I think you could say anything and it would be YOUR reason for disliking her and you would be answering the question stated in the tread title.

And the question WAS why each person disliked Hillary Clinton right?

The question wasn't what we liked about Hillary Clinton or are people wrong about Hillary Clinton.

I didn't know our answer had to stand up and be justified by others.

You know I don't like some companies because of their commercials that they play one hundred times a day. So many times that I would never buy their products if my life depended on it. That reason may not be good enough for some people, but it sure sounds good for me and my buying dollars.

Like I said there are no right answers when you are giving your personal views. Everyone see things in a different view and that is fine with me, and thank God, it is that way.

Actually I was just kidding about her being a tough lady, the "wife with balls" kind, which is generally considered not to be the most attractive kind (and most likely to be cheated on)! Seriously, while I definitely like Bill Clinton and sympathized with him (BTW, Apple, what's the big deal in perjury about his own damn private life??? ), I'm rather indifferent about her. However I'd be glad if she is the first woman to become President of the USA. It'd be fun to see how Bill behaves in the First Husband role.

So am I Lavi. Very indifferent. I'm not buying dollars recently anyway. Shouldn't we rather pity her than dislike?

I know that in the past, Lavinia, you've expressed your amazement and a lack of understanding regarding the puritanical views that many Americans seem to have about sex, and I'm inclined to agree with you.

And if you told me that no self-respecting Italian male with a little wealth and power doesn't have a mistress, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised.

But perjury is a different issue.

President Clinton made numerous public pronouncements in which he denied a sexual involvement with not only Monica Lewinsky, but with other women as well.

While many of these statements, as later events came to show, were lies, they did not constitute perjury.

Perjury occurs when you lie under oath - when you've sworn to tell the truth in a court of law, for example, or before a Congressional hearing or a Grand Jury.

And while I could be mistaken here (it's been a while), I believe that Mr. Clinton was accused of committing perjury in his testimony in response to a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee for while he was Governor, and again - while I don't believe that his private sex life was anyone's business in the first place since he broke no laws that I am aware of - in his testimony before a Grand Jury investigating, among other things, his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

In other words, I don't think it was anyone's business what he did with Monica Lewinsky as long as he committed no crimes, but since he was under oath he had an obligation to be truthful.

There is, however, a fairly good "strictly speaking legal argument" ( YOU CAN READ IT HERE ) that can be made that he did not commit perjury.

I just realized something. I didn't re-read every post, and a couple (including myself) said they didn't hate Hillary, but I don't believe one person said they would vote for her. Does this mean that we (right & left) actually agree on one political issue??? See, we can all get along. :p

Oh, and PLaw, just want to tell you what a great debator you are. I wouldn't have known that you "Hated" Hillary until this thread, but it's a real talent being able to reason and look at both sides of the issues. For instance, instead of starting a "I Hate Hillary" thread, you start a "why do you dislike Hillary", being open to both sides of the argument before expressing your views. In my opinion you remain cool & calm and are willing to see and understand both sides of the issues. Not easy for most of us.

TIS

Thank you so much for the compliment, TIS. You've made my day.

This thread was inspired,of course, by the "Hillary in 2008" thread (and others), in which I was was struck by how little substance the reasons given for disliking Ms. Clinton seemed to have.

As fathersson correctly points out, anyone is entitled to like or dislike a politician for any reason that they wish, but when we gang up on President Bush the reasons that we give for disliking him at least almost always have more substance than saying that "He's funny looking" or comparing him to a barnyard animal, even if his supporters don't agree with our reasons.

But I must confess that I have to agree with Sicilian Babe's argument of a few days ago (which, sadly, I was absent for): That a large part of the dislike of Ms. Clinton is caused by the fact that she's a woman, and calling her a "bitch" or a "cow" or a "pig" and referring to her only by her first name is, I believe, illustrative of that fact.

Now, I know why I don't like her, and it has nothing to do with the way she looks, but I was really curious to see what reasons people would come up with for disliking her when asked for other reasons than the ones I quoted at the start of the thread.

And while many came up with good ones, apparently some (who shall remain nameless) still felt compelled to once again make the invidious comparison between her and a four-legged animal. :rolleyes:

why pity? Many wives are cheated on by their husbands but they are never offered a eight years stay in the White House in return.... :p

FS, Feel free to dislike her all you want for whatever reason you want. Personally, I like to make my political choices based on a reason of some substance, and perhaps you don't. I was merely pointing out that most people seemed to dislike her on an irrational and strictly emotional level, which once again makes me believe that it has something to do with her being an intelligent and aggressive female.

And her argument of today as well

oh, I see. Well, in that case, I agree it's a total different case...


that is precisely what I'll never be able to understand. Why a Grand Jury had to investigate his affair with Ms Lewinsky.

I understand your point now, Plaw. And I agree. I still can't see why on earth he had to be under oath just because of his personal sex life, since he committed no crime. But I agree that once he had to because the legal/constitutional (?) system permits this, he should have been truthful. Ok, I'll be truthful myself. I found Clinton at the time he was in his office to have a very powerful if primitive erotic energy. In other words I found him to be pretty sexy. If I were a stagist at the White House and had the chance to work for him, I doubt I would have resisted him.....

why pity? Many wives are cheated on by their husbands but they are never offered a eight years stay in the White House in return.... :p [/b][/quote]It's just an offer, it isn't guaranteed. Besides, rare women are cheated in such a way - I mean - it isn't very pleasant to hear people discussing it on every TV channel. And anyway being married to BC - can't make anyone happy, I guess.

I just know the "Right" will love this. It is funny. So here, have your laughs. Just for you.

HILLARY'S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT in January 2009

Hillary Clinton gets elected President and is spending her first night in
the White House. She has waited so long..........The ghost of George
Washington appears, and Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"

Washington says, "Never tell a lie."

"Ouch!" Says Hillary,! "I don't know about that."

The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appears... Hillary says, "How
can I best serve my country?" Jefferson says,

"Listen to the people."

"Ohhh! I really don't want to do that."

On the third night, the ghost of Abe Lincoln appears...Hillary says, "How
can I best serve my country?"

Lincoln says, "Go to the theater."


TIS

Time out - if you had bothered to look in the other thread where we have discussed this, I've mentioned some reasons that revolve around her taxation policies, pro-choice stance, and personal character, all of which I think are excellent reasons that follow "logic or rational analysis."

Thanks,
DJ

No, that didn't push any buttons, didn't bother me. Why would it? I did reply to it, though. I hope you don't think that just because someone replies to a statement or question that it means you've pushed their buttons.

I will this once do something 'original' and not bother to respond to the rest. You get WAY too emotional and lose focus...and it's kind've boring after a while. Who can keep up with these rants???

Enough 'button-pushing', it's lost it's luster for now. I'll leave you alone for a bit and give you the last word, I know you need to have it.

It's a shame though, because you DID start and interesting discussion about Hillary. I'll move on to that.

Sicilian Babe...your statement that DC was the only one to provide a 'rational' reply is completely incorrect. Go back and read the responses from TIS and Don Jasani, among others. Also, if Hillary had not decided to run in NY, it may very well have been Ms. Lowey who got that war chest, and since NY is highly Democratic, would probably have won the seat (that is, once Guliani withdrew for health reasons). Lowey backed out knowing she nor anyone else would stand a chance against Hillary in a primary. So although a bad word was never said about her, she was never smeared in a campaign, she was most certianly crushed by Mrs. Clinton.

Apple

Yeesh...I almost missed that one!!

Perjury is perjury. You are lying under oath. It is a crime. Subject is of little importance.

And by the way...Bill's affair w/ Monica may have at the time been part of his 'private life', but once it became an issue in the Paula Jones lawsuit it was no longer a private matter. He swore an oath to tell the truth, and knowingly did not.

That's why he was impeached.

That's why he lost his law license for however many years it was suspended (anyone know if he's got it back yet?).

Were it not for that blue dress, he'd have gotten away with his crime and we'd all be in ignorant bliss today. But that was not to be the case.

So that's what the big deal is.

Apple

JJ - I was referring to what had been posted here , which is why I posted here and not in any other thread. However, I would certainly agree that your reasons do follow logic, even if I don't agree with your views.

Apple - I believe that the word "crush" implies that the Senator ruthlessly set out to destroy Nita Lowey and her political aspirations. Just because the DNC decided to back the candidate that had the best chance of winning, that would hardly qualify.

The word 'crush' implies whatever you want it to. It doesn't necessarily have to mean 'ruthlessly set out to destroy'. It can be done in quiet, subtle ways. Once Pat Moynihan announced he'd not run for another term, the field was open and Nita Lowey was far more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve in the U.S. Senate representing the State of NY. If for whatever reason the DNC decided to BACK Hillary and requested Lowey to back off, then Lowey was most certainly crushed. Quietly and efficiently crushed. Of course, she put up a brave face and fully backed Clinton in all the interviews she gave (and that I saw) after pulling out. But that's called going along party lines. She had to do it.

Apple

No, that didn't push any buttons, didn't bother me. Why would it? I did reply to it, though. I hope you don't think that just because someone replies to a statement or question that it means you've pushed their buttons.[/quote][/b]

All my statement you quoted above referred to was the fact that you didn't "recall" my "pig post"

I was merely pointing out that you responded to it within about 20 minutes, so I didn't see how you didn't "recall" it

Actually, considering the circumstances and its context and all, I thought it was rather memorable, myself.

And, yes. When it comes to these political discussions, I "do think that just because someone replies to a statement or question that it means you've pushed their buttons"

That's what I keep telling you. Perhaps you missed it when I made that very point in another post. I agree with you. All of the responses in these politial discussions in which people disagree are about pushed buttons. Apparently you seem to think so also, because otherwise why would you keep responding?

Anyway, calling me "WAY too emotional" in these threads is about as silly as it gets, and calling my posts "rants"? :rolleyes:

Who displays less emotion in these discussions than me?

To quote my dear friend Sicilian Babe: "PUH-leeze"

And, of course, if you find my posts boring, especially the ones that apply to you, I would suggest that you simply not read them.

I am glad, though, to hear that the "button-pushing" riff of yours has lost whatever luster it may have once had and you're ready to move on to something original.

And thanks for letting me have the last word. I appreciate it.

Actually, I would have to say "crush" now implies what I'm feeling for Plaw, because I am positively weak-kneed for a man that quotes me. Although he didn't call me Babe .

Babe. BABE. BABE





(We better watch ourselves here before we have Apple throwing up all over the place)
.....................

Who said that we are making political choices this way?

The topic of THIS thread was " Why you dislike Hillary Clinton?"and that is what some of us posted about.

So your cutting remarks are uncalled for.


And just for the record, we don't fear or dislike "intelligent and aggressive females" We just dislike fake, bitchy, lying, do nothing people, who run for political positions in our state. Some of us can look past that fake smile and so called charm that she hides behind.

In fact why did she come here to New York State to run, when she hadn't been involved before. Could it be the high profile power state of New York looked like it would be a good stepping stone for the Whitehouse. After all, most of what she has been doing is grandstanding since she got here. Putting her nose into everything, but getting nothing done.

After watching the State of the Union, you can now tell that Hillary is in her attack mode. Look out America, Hillary is on the move.

yes, now I see the difference between a lie and a perjury. Thanks for the explanation, Apple. Just a side consideration. I still believe Bill Clinton was a bit of a "victim" because of his office. Had he been a plumber, an accountant, a postman and not the most powerful man in the world, I guess he wouldn't have been sued for sexual harassment or whatever the charge was nor a blue spotted dress would have been kept uncleaned. Which is disgusting, IMO. He just behaved like 99,99% of men would under the same circumstances, lies included. Trouble is he happened to be the President of the USA and this changes the pattern dramatically.

FS, My point was that there didn't seem much basis for the dislike that I saw expressed. Most of the remarks seemed to be about her appearance or what people perceived as her attitude. I saw very few posts that mentioned things like her political views, her ideals, her voting record - which is what I thought was unusual, and, therefore, without logic or rationale. And that I why I still feel that the reason most people dislike her is based on her gender. I think if someone asked me why I don't like President Bush, and I answered, "Because his ears stick out and he can't pronounce the word nuclear," those would seem like silly reasons.

Plaw - as for you, instead of ROTFLing, we would have Apple ROLFING???

Gosh, you do go on & on...you sure do know how to brighten up a glum Tuesday morning!!

Actually, I really didnt' recall it until after you used your 'cut & paste' of quotes hobby to remind me. Then I recalled it...serioulsy though, it didn't make an impression. Hope your not taking too much pride in that one statement.

Gosh...this is getting to be fun again! I can push your buttons even when I'm trying NOT to push them!!

I think it's cute that you have the lib ladies falling all over you w/ regard to your online manner. Don't worry, I won't puke over it.

Oh, and sorry 'bout that 'last word' thing. I took it back...unless of course you have another novel in store to reply to THIS post.

Back to Hillary...

Apple

I dont dislike her.

Well, let's see....

Actually, I really didnt' recall it until after you used your 'cut & paste' of quotes hobby to remind me. Then I recalled it...serioulsy though, it didn't make an impression. Hope your not taking too much pride in that one statement.

If you didn't "recall" it, what was it that you responded to 20 minutes later? Let's get our story straight here.

I am, however, taking a great deal of pride in the statement. I know that you are intelligent enough to fully appreciate it, and that's why you keep denying that you remember it.

Gosh...this is getting to be fun again! I can push your buttons even when I'm trying NOT to push them!!

When was it ever not fun? I'm thoroughly enjoying myself as, clearly, you are too.

But back to the button pushing again? I think we've covered that fairly well already, haven't we? :rolleyes:

I think it's cute that you have the lib ladies falling all over you w/ regard to your online manner. Don't worry, I won't puke over it.

My fan base, I think, transcends politics. Why, even Mig likes me, and let me tell you, she's no "lib".

Oh, and sorry 'bout that 'last word' thing. I took it back...unless of course you have another novel in store to reply to THIS post.

Well, no. I don't think your post is quite worthy of an entire novel in response. A few paragraphs should do.

I must say, though, that I am a bit disappointed that after promising me the last word you took it back so quickly.

Could it be....Nah.....Well, maybe....Could it be.....Could it be that I'm pushing your buttons?

Ok, we'll get it straight (although I thought you were intelligent enough to figure it out by yourself).

I responded to what you refer to as the 'pig' post...and then forgot about it. Moved on...

When you mentioned it later as the 'pig' post, I had no idea what you were referring to. Because I had moved on...

Then you 'reminded' me because you were apparently very proud of what you thought had pushed my buttons, and then yes, I remembered the statement.

It really wasn't that big a deal, plaw. If that's all it takes to make you feel good about yourself, then I think you need a little therapy.

No, you're not pushing any of my buttons...though I see you're trying real hard to. All you're really doing is helping me entertain our fellow BB-ers.

plawrence - my little helper!

Apple

ps - who needs to be 'original' when this old hat stuff seems to work every time!!

OK. I understand the part about the "Pig Post" now.

Explain one more thing to me:

I've said on many occasions already that I agree with you 100%. You are "pushing my buttons" and I don't see the negative connotation to it as you appaerntly do, as all of everyone's responses in these political discussions where we disagree are a result of "pushed buttons."

But explain to me the difference between why, when I reply to one of your posts it's because you've "pushed my buttons", but when you reply to mine "buttons" have nothing to do with it.

Glad I can help you entertain, though.

AppleOnYa, my big helper.

P.S. Your lack of originality does not surprise me, as one's originality generally cannot be exceeded by their capabilities.

And I've decided to let you have the last word. You already have, and I'm about to, violate the rule of "One Too Many."

Because it's the way you've responded to my posts. Because I usually know what you're going to say and am usually right. Because even when I do not post to you personally, there are certain times when I think "oh, plaw will probably have something to say about THAT". And am usually right. (In all fairness though, there are certain others on the BB that I anticipate certain responses from, especially in General Discussion ... and am usually right about them, too. Including within this thread.)

And because most of all, when I made the 'cow' remark as a footnote to all the OTHER things I disliked about Hillary Clinton, I thought 'watch somebody latch onto that and disregard the rest of the post'.

And I was right.

That's the difference between pushing buttons and a mere reply to a question or comment. You push a button anticipating a certain response or action, whether it's a washing machine or a person. Not my problem if certain BB-ers come back with almost exactly the reaction I expect, and almost every time.

One thing I did expect and didn't get was for you to be mature enough to walk away from this silly tete-tete of ours and get on with the thread (which is still an interesting one). I kept figuring you'd think 'she WON'T push my buttons I'll just give her nothing further to respond to'. I kept thinking, 'He's NOT going to allow me to go on with this dopey stuff..."

What did you do...you stooped to my level every single time.

And how did it all start? Because I joked that I agreed with someone who says Hillary is a cow.

Yes, there certainly IS a difference. And I am certifiably insane. Congratulations for running around in circles with a lunatic.

And thanks for the last word.

Apple

I agree, they are silly reasons, but there are dozens of books out there full of stupid things the President says. Usually when I ask people who don't like Bush why, they say he's an idiot. I'll ask them to explain why, and 99% of the time they'll reference the way he talks.

Silly little things make a big impression on people. People can like of dislike Hillary because of her politics, or for any other reason. I dislike her for a variety of reasons, but one of them is not because she's a woman. I'm getting tired of hearing that as a defense: you just don't like to see a powerful woman. It's not true. I'd love to see more powerful women, just not that woman.

Now this was funny especially the last part.


SB in my original post the first 3 reasons I listed as to why I dislike Hilary has to do with politics. I have no problem with intelligent/aggresive women(especially in the bedroom ) heck I could even see myself voting for one one day. But just not Hilary.

So I have very valid reasons for not liking Hilary, and it's not based on an irrational/emotional level.

Well, I'm glad that there was rationale when it came to SOME, but you have to agree that most people just mentioned things that, to me, didn't seem like real reasons. And it was to those people that I ventured to guess that the underlying reason may have something to do with her gender.